CF azure-architecture
Expert guidance for designing Azure solutions using Azure Architecture. Covers reference architectures, solution ideas, design patterns, technology choices, architecture styles, best practices, anti-patterns, example workloads, and migration guides. Use when designing Azure AI/RAG, AKS microservices, data/analytics, IoT, or SAP/mainframe migration solutions, and other Azure Architecture related development tasks.
Expert guidance for designing Azure solutions using Azure Architecture.
As a process F 29/100 · No process to follow — References files that are not bundled: security.md
How to improve
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:383Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| Implement ransomware-resilient backups with Azure Backup | https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/security/ransomware-resilient-backup-architecture/ |
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 14672 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: security.md - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 169, 307): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 29/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: security.md
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 40Execution cost. Instruction body is 14672 tokens: crowds the task out of the window
- 50Steps. 2 steps
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3No numbered steps or checklist
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 416: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 12 headings
- +4Has examples (0 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 65.